"What I'll look at is the various cohorts, the top 5%, the top 10%, the top 25%, we'll look across the code at the various categories and see if they're continuing to pay the approximate share that they've paid in the past under the current system," he said.

Can anyone shed some light on what Romney means by this? I'm confused it this is intended to mean possibly increasing their tax rate, or a clever way to word a decrease.

Also, while I do see the disadvantages of having a multiple candidates at this stage in the race, it is preventing much cross-party mud-slinging (which is always nice). I just wish the GOP would stick to issues and hold off point at others as school children are want to do.

Thank you for pointing that out. I was thinking that we don't have the full understanding of this clip as well. I'm sure she was referring to the struggles we all face (for yes, even the rich have their problems, such as they are). I do wish sometimes we were given a more 'complete" view of some of these "headline quotes".

Halo, I find your comments hard to take seriously. You're quite off topic here. This is more a less a debate on an institution's rights, and will be decided upon (thankfully not by you). There are plenty of website where you can hate-monger, and I'd direct you there.

That being said, I agree with many of you that this is a matter of church/state, not woman's rights. I am most confident that America has progressed far enough that women would not be denied health care for such a silly reason as this. But on a bright side, if the church ends up not being made to provide this coverage, there are "cheap" alternatives. It would be more alarming if they were refusing to provide heart surgery. That would be quite a problem. o.o

The hardest part about reading an article like this (and the subsequent responses) is that (as a young voter) I feel like I'm not quite sure exactly what I'm voting for. I continue to read the many articles on this site about the race, but I really only hear "Party Points" rather than what each candidate hopes to do. I'm not sure that Brown has spent enough time in office to really show me what he's capable of influencing, and Warren has not held an office like this. I feel as if I'm voting on my "best hope" without much assurance that their individual abilities to significantly impact anything are credible. it also frustrates me when members of this community peg these two candidates with party "ideals" of which I'm not convinced they are influential proponents. Living in Springfield, I'd hate for someone to view me as a "drunk, uneducated, welfare abuser" simply by virtue of where I live and nothing more. I'm convinced this is what makes elections so confusing, the hundreds of hours/dollars spent trying to peg a candidate with one point and one point only.

I'd really appreciate less "mud slinging" and more stating of the truth. I know there are many paths to the same goal, but I'm not convinced that Mr. Brown or Mrs. Warren are (at this stage) showing us their path clearly enough so that I may vote with confidence. I look forward to more articles and information in their plans.

NoPol, that's a bit extreme. I'm not young enough to believe that Republicans don't point out Democratic extremists, but to categorize /all/ Republicans with him is not helping anything. I personally have no problem with religious organizations providing these services for their employees, but then again, I am responsible with my own life and have no reason to complain when I have to pay for my "birth control". I think most people will agree that insurance providers don't cover all of the things they should, but they never will. Going extreme either way will only serve to cause this "problem" to take precedent over real concerns that impact all religions/races/genders, such as the gas prices and the economy.

Seeing as how this is the second time he is being charged with this offense, I am of the opinion (because he denies the crime) that if he is found guilty, that should remain locked up. There has been much evidence that re-offenders in this particular area tend to escalate, and I'd hate to see a child abused as a result.

I believe (and I could be wrong) that he was not convicted for doing his job, but using more force than necessary. I doubt anyone would argue too well that Melvin "did nothing wrong" and should not have had any trouble in the first place, however, the number of times which he was hit was simply too much. That's really what the case was about. I don't agree that Melvin's charges should have been dropped, but that was not the case it. It was: Did Asher go too far. I hope that Mr. Asher (and family) are able to recover from this. I also hope that Melvin is brought to justice for the crimes he has committed.

Well, I personally do not know the day-to-day functions of Melvin's life, so rather than say "O, he should receive no money" (because let's be honest, he /will/ receive /some/ money), I simply put mayhaps a few dollars would cover it. Really, the point was I hope he does have to get a job in order to live like you or I, and not live off the city.

I believe (and being on the internet, I could always be wrong), what most people are looking for is a change in the system. Not to "remove" it, but to reign it in. Are there people that abuse the system? Yes. Will there always be? Sadly. However, to simply remove it would be horrific to most of America (let alone Springfield). However, making changes as to where money is being spent could easily make some of these problems less... antagonizing to the non-assistance members of society. Using your assistance at a gas station to purchase your weekly food is not the most sensible way to go about providing for your family. There is a happy, middle ground that I believe the country would like to get to, but sadly has no time to stop arguing and find it.

FH_SMH, I'd encourage you to volunteer at the Salvation Army and see that many nationalities, faiths, and persuasions are helped. To make such horrid comments on the basis of one picture without actually having participated in the event is rather childish. I hope you come next year and see just how much organizations like the Salvation Army really do help so many needy people.

I agree with you on that. I do believe they had the desire to take someone off the streets they viewed as a threat. However, Asher did appear to go above and beyond what the situation required. I really respect the police anywhere I go. They do something I myself cannot. But if I decided to begin stealing from my clients, then i deserve to be punished. That being said, I do /not/ think that Melvin deserves anything more than to have his medical bills paid for and perhaps any wages that he missed. It would be a travesty to see him walk away with his pockets stuffed because three officers used excessive force.

I've been a long time reader/follower of this site and, for the first time, I find myself in agreement with TMFK. The quote by George Washington is spot on. Not that America should not act to make sure it is safe, but to be primarily concerned with itself really is what we should be focused on. We're part of a "global community", but that means more than anything that we think of the whole picture when making decisions. The Middle East will probably never accept a "Western Viewpoint" and that is their loss/gain. I feel as long as they are not directly threatening America, we probably should let them alone. I am appreciative of all who have served to protect our country. I also do what I can to protect the people in the community I live in. That's what it's about, all of America working inside /and/ out for the betterment of all.